From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 00:41:58 GMT
>> DM said:
>> Now I did not say, I believe, that in the MOQ
>> the subject simply becomes part of SQ. Rather, this is what I am
>> saying: Quality is a whole. It exists prior to SOM as much as it
>> exists prior to MOQ's SQ/DQ divide -with a unifying Q in each term of
>> course. This is my ontological starting point.
Bo replied:
> A super-DQ that divides into DQ/SQ is dubious. It compares to a
> GOD who is prior to the usual God. No I think it more reasonable
> to regard the MOQ a VALUE reality that constitutes the static
> system.
>
Pirsig says:
"There already is a metaphysics of quality. A subject-object
metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of
Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into subjects and
objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is
supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it
doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits
above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also
saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and
objects are just one of the ways. The question was, which way was
best?"
According to Pirsig, Quality is undivided experience and DQ/sq is just
one of many ways to divide Quality. David M is correctly interpreting
Pirsig's MOQ. Bo, once again your position seems opposed to Pirsig's.
Regards,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 00:41:57 GMT